Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study

Octavia Bane, Stefanie J. Hectors, Mathilde Wagner, Lori L. Arlinghaus, Madhava P. Aryal, Yue Cao, Thomas L. Chenevert, Fiona Fennessy, Wei Huang, Nola M. Hylton, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Kathryn E. Keenan, Dariya I. Malyarenko, Robert V. Mulkern, David C. Newitt, Stephen E. Russek, Karl F. Stupic, Alina Tudorica, Lisa J. Wilmes, Thomas Yankeelov & 3 others Yi Fei Yen, Michael A. Boss, Bachir Taouli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods: A T 1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T 1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T 1 sample (P < 10 −6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10 −6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). Conclusions: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T 1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B 1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T 1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2564-2575
Number of pages12
JournalMagnetic Resonance in Medicine
Volume79
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Multicenter Studies
Protons
Linear Models
In Vitro Techniques

Keywords

  • DCE-MRI
  • T mapping
  • multicenter
  • phantom

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI : Results from a multicenter phantom study. / Bane, Octavia; Hectors, Stefanie J.; Wagner, Mathilde; Arlinghaus, Lori L.; Aryal, Madhava P.; Cao, Yue; Chenevert, Thomas L.; Fennessy, Fiona; Huang, Wei; Hylton, Nola M.; Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree; Keenan, Kathryn E.; Malyarenko, Dariya I.; Mulkern, Robert V.; Newitt, David C.; Russek, Stephen E.; Stupic, Karl F.; Tudorica, Alina; Wilmes, Lisa J.; Yankeelov, Thomas; Yen, Yi Fei; Boss, Michael A.; Taouli, Bachir.

In: Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Vol. 79, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 2564-2575.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bane, O, Hectors, SJ, Wagner, M, Arlinghaus, LL, Aryal, MP, Cao, Y, Chenevert, TL, Fennessy, F, Huang, W, Hylton, NM, Kalpathy-Cramer, J, Keenan, KE, Malyarenko, DI, Mulkern, RV, Newitt, DC, Russek, SE, Stupic, KF, Tudorica, A, Wilmes, LJ, Yankeelov, T, Yen, YF, Boss, MA & Taouli, B 2018, 'Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study' Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 2564-2575. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26903
Bane, Octavia ; Hectors, Stefanie J. ; Wagner, Mathilde ; Arlinghaus, Lori L. ; Aryal, Madhava P. ; Cao, Yue ; Chenevert, Thomas L. ; Fennessy, Fiona ; Huang, Wei ; Hylton, Nola M. ; Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree ; Keenan, Kathryn E. ; Malyarenko, Dariya I. ; Mulkern, Robert V. ; Newitt, David C. ; Russek, Stephen E. ; Stupic, Karl F. ; Tudorica, Alina ; Wilmes, Lisa J. ; Yankeelov, Thomas ; Yen, Yi Fei ; Boss, Michael A. ; Taouli, Bachir. / Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI : Results from a multicenter phantom study. In: Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 79, No. 5. pp. 2564-2575.
@article{891227c285a3427ca890ac5e40a19ddc,
title = "Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods: A T 1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T 1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5{\%}) was influenced predominantly by T 1 sample (P < 10 −6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3{\%}) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10 −6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2{\%}) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8{\%}) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13{\%}/8.21{\%}, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87{\%}/5.46{\%}, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15{\%}). Conclusions: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T 1 quantification (errors < 15{\%}). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B 1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T 1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018.",
keywords = "DCE-MRI, T mapping, multicenter, phantom",
author = "Octavia Bane and Hectors, {Stefanie J.} and Mathilde Wagner and Arlinghaus, {Lori L.} and Aryal, {Madhava P.} and Yue Cao and Chenevert, {Thomas L.} and Fiona Fennessy and Wei Huang and Hylton, {Nola M.} and Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer and Keenan, {Kathryn E.} and Malyarenko, {Dariya I.} and Mulkern, {Robert V.} and Newitt, {David C.} and Russek, {Stephen E.} and Stupic, {Karl F.} and Alina Tudorica and Wilmes, {Lisa J.} and Thomas Yankeelov and Yen, {Yi Fei} and Boss, {Michael A.} and Bachir Taouli",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/mrm.26903",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "2564--2575",
journal = "Magnetic Resonance in Medicine",
issn = "0740-3194",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI

T2 - Results from a multicenter phantom study

AU - Bane, Octavia

AU - Hectors, Stefanie J.

AU - Wagner, Mathilde

AU - Arlinghaus, Lori L.

AU - Aryal, Madhava P.

AU - Cao, Yue

AU - Chenevert, Thomas L.

AU - Fennessy, Fiona

AU - Huang, Wei

AU - Hylton, Nola M.

AU - Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree

AU - Keenan, Kathryn E.

AU - Malyarenko, Dariya I.

AU - Mulkern, Robert V.

AU - Newitt, David C.

AU - Russek, Stephen E.

AU - Stupic, Karl F.

AU - Tudorica, Alina

AU - Wilmes, Lisa J.

AU - Yankeelov, Thomas

AU - Yen, Yi Fei

AU - Boss, Michael A.

AU - Taouli, Bachir

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods: A T 1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T 1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T 1 sample (P < 10 −6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10 −6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). Conclusions: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T 1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B 1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T 1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018.

AB - Purpose: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods: A T 1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T 1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T 1 sample (P < 10 −6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10 −6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). Conclusions: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T 1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B 1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T 1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018.

KW - DCE-MRI

KW - T mapping

KW - multicenter

KW - phantom

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029499148&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029499148&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/mrm.26903

DO - 10.1002/mrm.26903

M3 - Article

VL - 79

SP - 2564

EP - 2575

JO - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

JF - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

SN - 0740-3194

IS - 5

ER -